Pros
Not ideal for those who prefer leaders who actively listen, encourage independent thinking, and separate personal validation from professional discussions.
Cons
Working here often feels like participating in an ongoing social experiment.
There is no formal HR department. Hiring, performance reviews, task delegation, and disciplinary matters are all handled directly by the founder. This creates a highly centralized environment where processes depend largely on one individual’s interpretation at any given time.
Task ownership is fluid. Leadership may step in to take over projects, and those same projects can return later with increased urgency. Performance evaluations do not always reflect how responsibilities shifted along the way. You are expected to deliver regardless of how timelines evolved.
Meetings are extensive. Three to four hours is common. Agendas are flexible, outcomes are sometimes unclear, and alignment is prioritized above efficiency. If agreement is not immediate, discussions continue. Conversations can become circular, with repeated questioning of even minor statements until the original topic is no longer recognizable.
Feedback is described as welcome. In practice, alternative viewpoints may trigger prolonged back-and-forth exchanges where every sentence requires justification. The end goal of these discussions is not always clarity, but alignment. Employees who prefer direct, solution-focused communication may find this dynamic draining.
Neutral work behavior — such as focusing while managing multiple client responsibilities — has, at times, been interpreted as negative attitude. Assumptions about tone or intent were occasionally made without clear basis, requiring further clarification from the employee. Performance discussions may focus more on perceived demeanor than measurable output.
The role advertised and the role performed differ significantly. Although not hired for a graphic design position, a substantial portion of the workload involved design tasks. Scope expansion appears to be ongoing and not always formally discussed.
There have also been internal concerns regarding statutory contribution payments. Deductions were made from salaries, but remittances were delayed for a period of time and, in some cases, remain unresolved. This has understandably raised serious questions about financial management and compliance.
The listing promotes “direct mentorship by the CEO.” In practice, onboarding is minimal and most learning happens independently or through colleagues. Expectations are immediate, while structured guidance is limited.
There appears to be a consistent gap between how the company presents itself publicly and how operations function internally. Rebranding does not automatically resolve structural or process-related issues.
If you urgently need employment, this may serve as an option.
If you value structured systems, professional communication, defined scope, and compliance clarity, ask very specific questions before accepting an offer.